Usability
THE APPLICATION OF USABILITY CONCEPTS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT Professor Keith Alexander Director, Centre for Facilities Management, University of Salford, United Kingdom Introduction Usability is one of the most important, but most often neglected, aspects of building performance. Work to apply these concepts in building design, construction, management and use is in its infancy. Over the past three years, an international team of researchers, a task group (TG51) of CIB, has investigated the application of concepts of usability, commonly used in the fields of consumer products, IT and engineering, in order to provide a better understanding of the user experience of buildings. The task group comprised research-based partners from five European countries including: Laboratoire Espace de Travail, La Villette,Paris,France Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK VTT, Transport and Buildings, Helsinki, Finland During the course of the project, the lead research-based partners have each facilitated the involvement of national clusters of ‘industrial partners’, representing different stakeholder perspectives as owners, occupiers and operators of buildings and workplaces. The work of the task group, and development of a joint understanding, proceeded through a programme of action research, comprising an intensive series of case studies and associated workshops, in association with occupying organisations, to produce research findings within a 'business' timeframe, to satisfy a practice audience, and to identify the scope for further collaboration amongst the research partners. This paper sets out the aims and objectives of the research, clarifies some of the key terms and concepts and describes the exploratory case study framework that has been created in workshops held amongst the research partners. Five case studies and workshops that comprise the first phase of the research programme have been completed and reported and initial findings and conclusions are presented. The Usable Workplaces Project Aims and Objectives The aim of the project, which is continuing to a second phase, was to promote, develop and share methods, processes and techniques for the evaluation of buildings-in-use, in particular workplaces, to investigate the concept of usability and its application in the built environment. The agreed objectives of the task group were: to conduct a series of case studies and associated workshops, involving users, practitioners and researchers in a programme of action research; to develop concepts of usability for application in practice; to promote, develop and share methods, processes and techniques for the evaluation of buildings-in-use; The project was not an investigation of what makes a building usable or not, but a theoretical exploration of different aspects of the concept. As described above, the concept of usability is traditionally closely tied to the concept of functionality and almost regarded as a causal effect of it. Following the work of Davis et al (op cit) in elaborating concepts of serviceability, performance is related to the usability in a given moment. Therefore, usability is a time, place, context and situation bound concept. The aim of the investigation was to elaborate the components of the concept usability. A better understanding of the concept will be useful not only in evaluation of buildings already in use but also a better understanding of what might be relevant knowledge to include in the briefing process of design. However, discourse about definitions and relations between functionality and usability must be made operational in the real world. In the project this was achieved through the planned set of case studies that were perform in the project. An important step is therefore to reflect on every case to determine whatever the definitions of functionality and usability are usable and helpful in real life situations to guide briefing for buildings and help in post occupancy evaluation of build space. Another aim is to use the cases to further enrich and elaborate the definition of the concepts for a better theoretical understanding. Organisation of the Project Research-based organisations from five countries participated in the TG51 working group. The UK was represented by Salford University with NCR, Powergen and the Royal Bank of Scotland as industrial partners. Sweden was represented by Chalmers University of Technology with Örebro University Hospital. Finland was represented by VTT in collaboration with Turku Polytechnic and the Old Mill Business Centre. Norway was represented by NTNU, SINTEF and Stattsbygg and France by the Ecole d’espace de travail, La Villette, Paris, with Renault as a partner. Each contributed with a case that was presented and examined in a workshop. The evaluation was a self-evaluation made by the company in co-operation with the local researchers. The aim of the evaluation was to describe the actions taken, decisions made and qualities included in the project to arrive at a usable solution. The evaluation also included a review of the usability of the building in use. The sources for this investigation were documents, interviews and observations of the kind that are used in quick ethnographical methods. The evaluation was documented in a draft report to the whole group. This report was the foundation for a workshop where the evaluation was discussed and challenged by the other participants. The outcome of the workshop was input to a final report of the case. The aim of the case evaluation and the workshop was to identify aspects of the concept of usability. As every case was different and belong to different contexts new aspects of the concept was highlighted in every national study. An early provisional and rudimentary understanding of the concept is developing and elaborated with every workshop. Towards a Theoretical Framework The project has sought to clarify and define the terms used in the field of usability and to contrast them with those conventionally used in the built environment, in particular serviceability, post-occupancy evaluation and functionality. Research on the evaluation of buildings has some widespread and valuable component internationally. ‘The Serviceability Tool’, created by Gerald Davis et al 1993, is acknowledged as one of the most widespread practical and theoretical frameworks for the appraisal of building performance. Davis et al distinguish between performance and serviceability and Ventre, 1990, and argue that: ‘…serviceability is about whether a building or facility is capable of performing as required. /…./ whilst performance means actual behaviour in service at a given moment.’ Their definition of performance acknowledges the importance of the situation. They also appreciate that human preference, such as the notion of satisfaction, is important as it is stated in the ISO standard for the concept of usability (ISO 9241-11). They also defines serviceability as a broader term than performance, which indicates that his interpretation of satisfaction has a general meaning and is not connected to individual values dependant on situation, context and time. The characteristics of the concept serviceability, as it is defined by Davis et al and adopted by most students of the field, is that serviceability and hence performance is causally tied to functionality. In Davis’ reasoning, serviceability is synonymous to usability in the meaning it has in ISO 9241-11 (ISO, 1998). Wolfgang Preiser, another important contributor to the field of built environment evaluation is one of the foremost figures in developing Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) techniques 1988. POE is a technique strongly tied to performance. POE is traditionally a technique that is used after a building is in use. In recent writing however, Preiser has indicated different types of POE – indicative, investigative and diagnostic 2003. POE and Serviceability Tools are two competing methods to evaluate and rate buildings in relation to the intended use. They are both focused on observing and measuring certain physical aspects of the building or the facility and evaluate that in relation to the intended or actual use. Functionality can be defined as a property given to an artefact in order to create a practical effect 2001. An important effect can be described as usability op cit. Product designers suggest two categories of functionality; technical functionality and interactive functionality op cit. Technical functionality is defined as those properties given to the artefact that makes it do the job in itself - operational functionality, but also those properties given that makes the artefact work as a part of a larger whole - structural functionality. Interactive functionality is described as ergonomic functionality and communicative functionality and is about those properties of the artefact that interact with users of the artefact. Ergonomic functionality refers to all those properties of the artefact that affect the more tangible relations between man and the artefact. Communicative functionality on the other hand deals with the more subtle effects that the form and aesthetics of the artefact have in terms of supporting meaning, values, identification or sensory aspects. In ISO 9241-11 three factors are described that determine usability. Efficiency means that the artefact allows the users to perform with ease and with little use of resources. Effectiveness describes the ability of the artefact to deliver a certain desired effect. The third factor is satisfaction that describes the users feeling and attitudes to the artefact and its effects. Functionality alone does not make a certain artefact usable. The technical and physical properties of the artefact and its theoretical potential to deliver a certain effect do not automatically make it usable in the real world. As a result of the definition of usability it also depends on the situation in which the artefact is used, the context the artefact is designed and used in and the values of the designers and users. Both context and values change with time and place. Research Methodology As the aim of the investigation was the understanding of a complicated concept, rather than finding common quantitative evidence of a certain phenomenon, a qualitative and practice grounded method was used that the researchers have long experience of. Three important components characterised the investigation – the fusion of research and practice, self-evaluation by practice and the choice of situations from different cultural contexts As the aim was to find a common understanding of what properties makes a building usable, the investigation proceeded from a traditional quantitative point of departure. However, as the overall intention was to expand the understanding of the concept usability, in order to get a common understanding of a meaning that can serve as guidance in as many design and evaluation situations as possible, the situations of investigation have been chosen in quite another way. From a similar project, investigating the multiple aspects of ‘the importance of spatial design to work place performance’, an appropriate method has been developed for this kind of research. The first component of the investigation was to fuse practice and research together in the development of understanding. Theory developed from practice and theoretical reflection on and structuring of practical understanding were the cornerstones of the investigation. The creative process of investigating and reflecting on common situations between research and practice were essential. This method of developing innovative new concept that challenges existing theories as well as proven practice has been successful in earlier project. For example, in 1980 Granath participated in the innovation of a new production system that at the time was challenging existing state of the art and resulted in new theories in the area as well as the innovative automotive assembly plant for Volvo in Uddevalla, Sweden 1991. The second component was the combination of self-evaluation by practice and a selection of quick ethnographical research methods. In the almost ten years long thematic network, the ‘workspace project’ 2000, a case based method was developed that formed a foundation for of the approach in this project. The third important component is choosing situations from different cultural contexts like countries, companies and industrial branches. Like the workspace thematic network op cit, this project was a co-operation between a number of countries represented by researchers and companies from different disciplines. Case Studies For the purposes of the research, a usability case study framework was devised, with six inter-related dimensions comprising of an organisational system and describing the context of the case study organisation in its business environment and the relationships amongst people, processes and settings, through time. The case study framework was also related to an assessment for business excellence, the EFQM model, to facilitate discussion with business leaders and managers in the host organisations. This case study framework will be further developed during the project. Five case studies were selected and have been completed in phase one of the project, one each in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and France and Norway. All five case studies and associated workshops were completed and reported by May 2005. The UK case study focused on the development of R & D facilities for NCR in Dundee, Scotland. Contribution to the Usability Task Group is demonstrated through the use of novel planning processes. Features of the project include the relocation and change process in such a tight timescale, Community Based Planning process, integration of Business Unit and Facilities Management as well as NCR ‘Discovery Centre’ being selected as one of the World Class FM practices. Örebro University Hospital was chosen as the Swedish case study and focused on the users’ experience of functionality and usability of the surgery and radiology centres, built 1997, at Örebro University Hospital. Contribution to the Usability Task Group is demonstrated through the analysis of the planning process, the effects of incorporating new technology and new work processes as well analysis of the building configuration/layout. The case also enables a discussion on ongoing development of hospital work and its relationships to clients and premises. The Finnish case study was set in Turku Science Park, which is the core of the innovative environment in Southwest Finland. In this area the ‘Old Mill’ offers companies versatile services as well as functional and interesting premises with an atmosphere reminiscent of an old factory. There is a need to enlarge the functional and Old Mill 2 is in a planning phase. The case- study in Old Mill goals firstly to understand the elements of usability in refurbished environment and secondly to produce the elements for the use of planning process of Old Mill 2. The method used is a workplace survey for users of the building and database information about the requirements of the building. This data is analysed in order to find out the relevant components of usability. The French case study took place in Technocentre Renault in Guyancourt. Renault has shifted its focus in the production chain from defining its core business as manufacturing of car to design of cars. This has been the underlying idea when designing the Technocentre. The studied La Ruche Building is housing those design projects that are supposed to go into production. The case contributed to the understanding of usability in many ways. The importance of a well articulated business strategy was clear and need to balance the productivity aspects with the cost aspects in the use of buildings was obvious and above all the importance of managing usability. This final case study in the first series was the Nord-Trøndelag University College at Røstad(HiNT), and the building Nylåna in Norway.The building was finished in 1999, and is housing the General teacher education, Preschool teacher education and the Nursing education section. We also find the common library, canteen and auditoriums for the University College here. Since the building was finished 6 years ago, the number of students starting their studies at the Røstad campus, has increased by 1000 from 1500 to 2500. In this case the concept of usability was discussed from different perspectives considering usability during the different phases of the planning process to the building in use. In the introduction, we give an overview of different factors inluencing usability from Norwegian standards and legislation. As part of the Norwegian contribution to the project, we take the development of the theoretical framework of usability of buildings in the CIB TG 51 a step further. This case investigated the consistency of the planned and the completed building, and the building as it is today, 5 – 6 years after handling over. This includes how the different users like students, teachers and other staff evaluate the usability of the building and the validity of the planned building related to the situation today, and from the perspective of change. For the survey, a standard building questionnaire developed by Building Use Studies was used to benchmark this building against a greater number of UK buildings. Still we have some indicators on conditions that could have an influence on whether the result is good or bad in a usability perspective. The real process being investigated is discussed and seen in the light of the planned process (the procedures and routines). The workshops associated with each case study provided the opportunity for participants to share their experience and for the presentation of similar cases. Interim Findings A particular focus of the case studies was the processes by which the organisations ensure improved effectiveness and how successfully they manage organisational change associated with the workplace. These processes include usability planning, design and management and processes of workplace appraisal and audit. The workshops provided the opportunity of evaluating the application of particular processes and systems and tools for usability. Usability processes have been considered for use in design, planning and workplace appraisal. A number of specific tools have been evaluated for example community-based planning 1998, requirements management (Eco Prop), universal design for Universal Design, 1997 and particular tools for performance measurement, such as design quality indicators and Whyte, 2003. Through the case studies, the usefulness of these tools has been assessed in the context of the organisations, from a facilities management perspective, with a particular interest in the manageability of the workplace and Murphy, 1993. A number of key theoretical and methodological issues have emerged from the work and will be developed in a forthcoming journal paper. The industrial partners have benefited from some key practical outcomes of the work: Sharing knowledge of user experience in the workplace; Independent review and share best practice; Feedback from leading-edge organizations; New knowledge for action: user experience – feedforward links between the quality of the environment, health, well-being and productivity in the workplace appraisal methods and techniques; cross-cultural collaboration and information exchange; Reflection In cross-cultural situations, national, ethnical or corporate differences could cause misunderstandings, poor decisions and serious loss of time and money. Effort could be invested in buildings and work place design that are not as effective and sustainable, from an economic, cultural and human point of view, as they could be. Even more though it could cause mistrust, lack of commitment and loyalty, which in turn could cause lower productivity, less creativity, loss of customers and personnel turnover or absenteeism in user organisations. Several Swedish studies have shown that, at least in some situations, participation in work place design is a powerful vehicle to development of the work organisation and learning in organisations for example, Granath, op cit, Adler et al, 1995, Granath et a, 1996, Granath, 1999 and Lindahl, 2001. These practical findings and international collection of case data by professor Vivian Loftness at Carnegie Mellon and research done by Michael Brill of BOSTI in US 2001 also shows that the negative economical implications on productivity might be tenfold the saving on work place costs if done wrongly. This risk is especially high in knowledge organisations where commitment and trust is crucial to staff performance. The task group has also reflected on the working of the task group, with particular attention to team working and collaboration. For example, Cooper 2002 has considered similar collaborative projects as examples of the ‘new production of knowledge’. He describes such production as ‘short-life inter-disciplinary teams collaborate by engaging in a dynamic form of research characterised by practical problem solving through negotiated and consensually produced knowledge.’ New knowledge production increasingly transcends discipline boundaries op cit, Nowotny et al, 2001. New means of knowledge production, mediated electronically over the Internet op cit, Mansell and When, 1998, will be able to unify the cross-disciplinary boundaries working in dispersed locations. Network based collaboration gives organisations the opportunity to share knowledge and hence allows the partners’ cooperation and team approaches to problem solving more quickly 2000. Conclusions Broad conclusions about the nature of usability as a concept have been drawn from the work: ‘User experience' encompasses all aspects of the end-user's interaction with an organisation, its services, its products and its facilities; Usability means ‘getting closer to the user’, and focuses on user perceptions of the ease and efficiency with which they can use the facility - the workplace; is concerned with the effect rather than intentions or product - it is not PoE; is a continuing process – it is not a project; is a time, place, context and situation bound concept; Increased functionality does not necessarily mean improved usability!; The results of the five case studies, reports of the associated workshops, and initial findings and conclusions have been published as a CIB Report, ‘Usability of Workplaces’ (CIB, 2006). Key issues will be highlighted to generate an open discussion about the application of usability concepts and techniques to assessing buildings and workplaces in use. References Adler, N., Granath, J.Å. & G.A. Lindahl, (1995), ‘Organizational Learning Supported by Collective Design of Production Systems and Products’, in Management and New production Systems, Papers from the 2nd International Conference of The European Operations Management Association, Univ.Twente, Netherlands: Univ of Twente, School of Management Studies. Alexander, K ed, (2006), ‘Usability of Workplaces’, CIB Report, Publication 306; Alexander, K and Murphy, W, (1993), ‘The Manageability of Buildings’, in Alexander, K, ed, ‘Facilities Management 1993’, Hastings Hilton; Brill, M., (2001), ‘Disproving Widespread Myths About Workplace Design’, The BOSTI Associates, Buffalo, NY, US. Centre for Universal Design, (1997), ‘Universal design principles’, College of Design, NC State University; Cooper, I, (2002), ‘Transgressing discipline boundaries: is BEQUEST an example of 'the new production of knowledge', Building Research and Information, Vol 30(2), pp116-129. Davis, G. et al, (1993), ‘Serviceability Tools, vol 1-5’, The International Centre for Facilities, Ottawa, Canada. Davis, G. and Ventre, F.T., (1990), ‘Facility Serviceability Standards: current developments’, in Performance of Buildings and Serviceability of Facilities by Davis & Ventre, ed. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, US. EuroFM, (2000), ‘Workspace: improving production quality via workspace design’, Final Report, September 2000; Gann, D M and Whyte, J K, (2003), ‘Design quality’, Special Issue, Building Research and Information, Volume 31 Number 5, September-October 2003; Granath, Jan Åke, (1991), ‘Architecture, Technology and Human Factors – Design in a Socio-Technical Context’, PhD Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology. Granath, Jan Åke, Lindahl, Göran, A. and Rehal, Saddek, (1996), ‘From Empowerment to Enablement: An evolution of new dimensions in participatory design’, paper published in Logistik & Arbeit, June 1996. International Standards Organisation, (1998), ‘ISO 9241: Ergonomics of human system interaction‘; Lindahl, G, (2001), ’Collective Design Processes as a Facilitator for Collaboration and Learning’, Fourth Conference on Learning and Research in Working Life; Mansell, R. Wehn, U, (1998), ’Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for Sustainable Development’, Oxford University Press on behalf of the United Nations, Oxford Nowotny, H, Scott, P and Gibbons, M, (2001), ‘Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty’, Cambridge, Polity Press; Preiser, W.F.E., et al, (1988), ‘Post-Occupancy Evaluation’, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, US. Preiser, W.F.E., (2003), ‘Improving Building Performance’, NCARB Monograph Series, Washington, DC,US. Rifkin, J., (2000), ‘The Age of Access’, Penguin, London; Steelcase, (1998), ‘Community-based Planning’, Grand Rapids, USA: Warell, A. (2001), ‘Design Syntactics: A Functional Approach to Visual Product Form’, Theory, models and methods. Dissertation. Engineering and Industrial Design, Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.